Everyone who is realistic expected this outcome, but there's still that sense of letdown, a feeling that what remains of one's belief in the goodness and honesty of the nation's judges is being destroyed. That little optimistic part that thought that just maybe the honest outcome would be the one the judges chose.

Huh? The Illinois Supreme Court overturned the COA's 2-1 decision based upon 150 years of established law. The two judges on the COA that blocked the Board of Elections decisions pretty much made up their reasoning.

At the end of the day, Emmanuel probably shouldn't have tried to run this time out of decency. Alternatively, the people who wrote the law should have defined their terms better.

Those two things aside, though, I don't think you can say that a reasonable, objective person couldn't decide the way the Illinois Supremes decided. Moreover, you have to consider the practicalities here. As bad as a corporate asshole like Mayor Rahm may be, Mayor Moseley Braun is just unfathomably disgusting.

The Supremes used the "not clearly erroneous" standard on the finding of facts by the Election Board. So what's new. Courts usually duck these political cases using a "Rule" when they want to and not using it when they don't want to.

The Supremes used the "not clearly erroneous" standard on the finding of facts by the Election Board. So what's new.

They saw it as an issue of fact, not of law. If the issue is of fact, "clearly erroneous" is the standard that appellate courts use to determine whether they should overrule the trier of fact, in this case the Board of Elections. There is nothing surprising or novel about this.

Now should they properly have treated it as an issue of law? You would have to study the whole case very carefully to know that.

Our commentors don't seem to like the result. Appellate courts aren't supposed to rule based on their personal preference of result.

" ...you have to consider the practicalities here. As bad as a corporate asshole like Mayor Rahm may be, Mayor Moseley Braun is just unfathomably disgusting."

What kind of fucking dumb ass statement is this in a representative democracy?

Listen, dude: The people of the city of Chicago, through their elected representatives, passed an imminently reasonable law. It says that any candidate for mayor has to live in the city for the 12 months preceeding the election. This keeps carpetbaggers out of their town.

It's a pretty simple law. It does not require interpretation - except to get around it.

The Illinois Supreme Court is corrupt and deliberately ignored the plain meaning of the law. No other conclusion is reasonable.

This court is illegitimate. Nobody should obey this court. One would hope that the people of the city of Chicago rise up against the injustice these corrupt men visited upon them today.

We live in a democracy. Unelected judges have no right to ignore the laws we pass.

The law says that a candidate must have "resided" in the city for a year. You are forcing a meaning on the word "reside" which favors the political end you seek.

So, if I leave Chicago after living there for 30 years but keep my property as a rental and never return for 30 years --- I am still "residing" in Chicago, even though my tax filings (that were amended at the last minute) said I didn't?

Florida reminds me of -- and probably is one of -- the people caterwauling when sensible conservatives and libertarians were sad and grumpy that Christine for U.S. Senator from Delaware.

Well, dude: who is the Senator now?

Similarly, you can complain all you want about Emmanuel meeting residency requirements in a very sketchy way. But the alternative is potentially much worse.

Finally, it's just not true that our elections here are rigged. What is true is that there's no way a Republican is going to win any city office. If you are serious about defeating Emmanuel, get off your ass and support one of his opponents, just not Moseley Braun for God's sake.

I wonder how many of the people who are appalled at the ruling have read any of it.

I read the first few pages, which were enough to convince me that the court did the right thing (as they were a synopsis of what followed).

Basically, the court said that once you become a resident of Chicago, that residency is not given up lightly: In order to do so, you have to intentionally do something that establishes you as a resident of somewhere else.

For example, Emanual might have exchanged his Illinois driver's licence for a DC license, or file a tax return saying that he was a DC resident, or change the address on his checking account to be a DC address, or tell his friends that he did not intend to return to Chicago after completing his government service in DC, or sell his Chicago home and buy one in DC, and so on and so forth.

But he didn't do any of these things, and the supreme court said that given the circumstances, the legal issues had been well settled for 150 years.

If this case were unprecedented, I might be tempted to believe that the court was making up principles to force the outcome they desired; but as it isn't, I'm not.

The Dems have ruined and looted most of the great big cities. The reigning party in Chicago deserves Rahm - he served as a board member of Fwannie & Fweddie and chief of staff to the worst president in our history. I am sure he will screw up Chicago and reduce a great city to an also ran in spite of its natural assets and history.

Good luck to Seven and others who will never see the dying of the light until it's too late. But will fight to the death the thought of a Diversity Hire as Mayor like Carol Mosley Braun.

AJ -- I'm not saying that this is a just result. I'm saying that it's a fair reading of the law, particularly in light of the many, many other readings of the word "resident." A contentious word. I'm also saying that we could do a hell of a lot worse than Emmanuel.

I will also add that Richard Daley has been an incredible, awesome mayor. I plan to write him in.

Finally, apparently no one will try my hypotheticals. That makes me sad.

I think going to the North Pole by dog sled would nullify your Chicago Residency. There is no reasonable expectation of return. Mostly because you'd die a horrible death when the packs of starving polar bears track you down and have first the dogs as a snack and then you as the main course.

Haven't you heard? Global Warming er Climate Change has killed most of the polar bears.

Seven:I don't know - sounds like Emanuel is really just your preferred choice among the crappy, scummy options on the ballot.So you may be crafting your legal defense to meet your preferred choice. Doesn't make you a bad person- we all do that.

I will also add that Richard Daley has been an incredible, awesome mayor. I plan to write him in.Richard Daley is "incredible" and "awesome" ? Thanks - I needed a laugh this morning.Daley is the reason Chicago is the mess that it is. Sadly Chicagoans are far too stupid to elect anyone who wants the city to be great again so they will be stuck with Rahm. And the rest of Illinois will suffer as well.

Imus said that, if Emanuel could fix the Supreme Court, he deserved to be Mayor. Well ...

Meanwhile, this is one reason people hate lawyers. Any normal human being reading that statute would think you have to live in Chicago for a year. It's another Bill Clinton moment - "is." Just like in NJ a few years back where the Supreme Court ignored the plain language of a statute to get Torricelli off the ballot after it was clear he would lose.

@Professor, is there some fancy Latin term for "respect for the judiciary" along the same lines as "res ipsa loquitur" stands in for "it's pretty obvious to a lobotomized field mouse?"

Because I think after the U of Illinois Law School scandals of a couple years ago and the widely-held view that the fix is in and always was going to be in as regards Emanuel, there's a bit less of it in Illinois right now.